Bassam Abdul Rasool Hassan, Ali Haider Mohammed, Ahmed Zuhair Abdulhameed Alsammarraie, Musaab Kadhim Alabboodi
{"title":"伊拉克肿瘤学家放射治疗耐药性知识评估工具的开发与心理计量学验证。","authors":"Bassam Abdul Rasool Hassan, Ali Haider Mohammed, Ahmed Zuhair Abdulhameed Alsammarraie, Musaab Kadhim Alabboodi","doi":"10.1007/s13187-025-02687-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Radiotherapy resistance (RTR) is a significant barrier in oncology, affecting treatment outcomes and clinical decision-making. Despite its importance, no standardized tool exists to measure oncologists' knowledge of RTR. This study aimed to develop and validate a comprehensive questionnaire to assess oncologists' knowledge of RTR. A 29-item questionnaire was developed following a multi-phase process. An initial pool of 45 items was refined through content and face validity assessments by a panel of 5 experts, leading to item revisions and deletions. Data were collected from 400 oncologists in Iraq. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were conducted to establish construct validity, while Cronbach's alpha, Composite Reliability (CR), and Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis were used to assess internal consistency and item performance. EFA confirmed the eight-domain structure of the questionnaire, with factor loadings exceeding 0.70 for all items. CFA demonstrated good model fit, with indices of CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, and RMSEA = 0.06. Internal consistency was high, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.93 and a CR of 0.94 for the overall questionnaire. IRT analysis revealed that all items had acceptable difficulty, discrimination, and guessing parameters, indicating that the items effectively differentiate oncologists with varying levels of knowledge. The final 29-item questionnaire covered key RTR domains, including Conventional and Combined Therapies, Radioresistance, and Sensitivity and Resistance. The validated 29-item knowledge questionnaire demonstrated strong psychometric properties, making it a reliable tool for assessing oncologists' knowledge of RTR. This tool can support oncology education, training, and research. Future studies should focus on cross-cultural validation, test-retest reliability, and examining how RTR knowledge influences clinical decision-making. This tool is especially relevant for improving oncology training and clinical decision-making in Iraq, where systemic barriers such as limited equipment, training gaps, and uneven access to radiosensitizers challenge cancer care.</p>","PeriodicalId":50246,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and Psychometric Validation of a Knowledge Assessment Tool on Radiotherapy Resistance Among Oncologists in Iraq.\",\"authors\":\"Bassam Abdul Rasool Hassan, Ali Haider Mohammed, Ahmed Zuhair Abdulhameed Alsammarraie, Musaab Kadhim Alabboodi\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13187-025-02687-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Radiotherapy resistance (RTR) is a significant barrier in oncology, affecting treatment outcomes and clinical decision-making. Despite its importance, no standardized tool exists to measure oncologists' knowledge of RTR. This study aimed to develop and validate a comprehensive questionnaire to assess oncologists' knowledge of RTR. A 29-item questionnaire was developed following a multi-phase process. An initial pool of 45 items was refined through content and face validity assessments by a panel of 5 experts, leading to item revisions and deletions. Data were collected from 400 oncologists in Iraq. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were conducted to establish construct validity, while Cronbach's alpha, Composite Reliability (CR), and Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis were used to assess internal consistency and item performance. EFA confirmed the eight-domain structure of the questionnaire, with factor loadings exceeding 0.70 for all items. CFA demonstrated good model fit, with indices of CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, and RMSEA = 0.06. Internal consistency was high, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.93 and a CR of 0.94 for the overall questionnaire. IRT analysis revealed that all items had acceptable difficulty, discrimination, and guessing parameters, indicating that the items effectively differentiate oncologists with varying levels of knowledge. The final 29-item questionnaire covered key RTR domains, including Conventional and Combined Therapies, Radioresistance, and Sensitivity and Resistance. The validated 29-item knowledge questionnaire demonstrated strong psychometric properties, making it a reliable tool for assessing oncologists' knowledge of RTR. This tool can support oncology education, training, and research. Future studies should focus on cross-cultural validation, test-retest reliability, and examining how RTR knowledge influences clinical decision-making. This tool is especially relevant for improving oncology training and clinical decision-making in Iraq, where systemic barriers such as limited equipment, training gaps, and uneven access to radiosensitizers challenge cancer care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50246,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cancer Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cancer Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-025-02687-y\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-025-02687-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Development and Psychometric Validation of a Knowledge Assessment Tool on Radiotherapy Resistance Among Oncologists in Iraq.
Radiotherapy resistance (RTR) is a significant barrier in oncology, affecting treatment outcomes and clinical decision-making. Despite its importance, no standardized tool exists to measure oncologists' knowledge of RTR. This study aimed to develop and validate a comprehensive questionnaire to assess oncologists' knowledge of RTR. A 29-item questionnaire was developed following a multi-phase process. An initial pool of 45 items was refined through content and face validity assessments by a panel of 5 experts, leading to item revisions and deletions. Data were collected from 400 oncologists in Iraq. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were conducted to establish construct validity, while Cronbach's alpha, Composite Reliability (CR), and Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis were used to assess internal consistency and item performance. EFA confirmed the eight-domain structure of the questionnaire, with factor loadings exceeding 0.70 for all items. CFA demonstrated good model fit, with indices of CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, and RMSEA = 0.06. Internal consistency was high, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.93 and a CR of 0.94 for the overall questionnaire. IRT analysis revealed that all items had acceptable difficulty, discrimination, and guessing parameters, indicating that the items effectively differentiate oncologists with varying levels of knowledge. The final 29-item questionnaire covered key RTR domains, including Conventional and Combined Therapies, Radioresistance, and Sensitivity and Resistance. The validated 29-item knowledge questionnaire demonstrated strong psychometric properties, making it a reliable tool for assessing oncologists' knowledge of RTR. This tool can support oncology education, training, and research. Future studies should focus on cross-cultural validation, test-retest reliability, and examining how RTR knowledge influences clinical decision-making. This tool is especially relevant for improving oncology training and clinical decision-making in Iraq, where systemic barriers such as limited equipment, training gaps, and uneven access to radiosensitizers challenge cancer care.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Cancer Education, the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education (AACE) and the European Association for Cancer Education (EACE), is an international, quarterly journal dedicated to the publication of original contributions dealing with the varied aspects of cancer education for physicians, dentists, nurses, students, social workers and other allied health professionals, patients, the general public, and anyone interested in effective education about cancer related issues.
Articles featured include reports of original results of educational research, as well as discussions of current problems and techniques in cancer education. Manuscripts are welcome on such subjects as educational methods, instruments, and program evaluation. Suitable topics include teaching of basic science aspects of cancer; the assessment of attitudes toward cancer patient management; the teaching of diagnostic skills relevant to cancer; the evaluation of undergraduate, postgraduate, or continuing education programs; and articles about all aspects of cancer education from prevention to palliative care.
We encourage contributions to a special column called Reflections; these articles should relate to the human aspects of dealing with cancer, cancer patients, and their families and finding meaning and support in these efforts.
Letters to the Editor (600 words or less) dealing with published articles or matters of current interest are also invited.
Also featured are commentary; book and media reviews; and announcements of educational programs, fellowships, and grants.
Articles should be limited to no more than ten double-spaced typed pages, and there should be no more than three tables or figures and 25 references. We also encourage brief reports of five typewritten pages or less, with no more than one figure or table and 15 references.